- (1.) The landlord petitioner has filed this petition against the order of the Appellate Authority Rohtak, dated 5th July, 1976, whereby the order of the Rent Controller dismissing his ejectment application was maintained.
(2.) The landlord sought ejectment of his tenant on the grounds that he requires the premises in dispute for his own use and occupation and, secondly that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The petition was contested by the tenant-respondent. It was pleaded in the written statement that the premises in dispute is not a residential building ; rather it is Gurdwara Sahib and he is its Granthi Manager. He further pleaded that the building is not in a dilapidated condition; rather it is in intact position and is properly maintained. He also pleaded that the application of the landlord filed earlier on these very grounds was dismissed by the Rent Controller and the said order was maintained in appeal, and, therefore, the present application is barred under the principle of res judicata. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : 1. Whether the respondent liable to ejectment on the grounds alleged in the application 2. Whether the application has no locus standi to sue 3. Whether the application is not maintainable in the present form 4. Whether the application is barred by the principle and rules of res judicata 5. Whether the tenancy in favour of the Gurdwara and the Gurdwara is a juristic person, if so to what effect 6. Whether the notice of ejectment served on the respondent is valid 7. Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try the matter 8. Whether the Gurdawara Act is applicable to the case, if so, to what effect 9. Whether the application is bad for non-joinder of parties The Rent Controller dismissed the application as it came to the conclusion on issue No. 1 that the landlord has failed to prove the main two grounds taken for ejectment. Moreover, his appeal earlier filed pertaining to this very building was already dismissed on 15th June, 1974. No new ground has been made out in the present application filed on 21st January, 1975 In appeal, the only point urged related to the ground of personal bonafide necessity of the landlord. No other point was urged as has been clearly stated in the order of the Appellate Authority (sic) took the view that on the principles of res judicata, the landlord could not make a fresh application on the same ground, particularly when no new circumstances have been proved. Feeling aggrieved against this order, the landlord has come up in revision to this Court.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that it has been wrongly held by the Authorities below that the principles of res judicata are applicable to these proceedings, According to him, Section 14 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), only applies to the applications which were finally decided under this Act. According to the learned counsel, the earlier proceedings were not taken under this Act as this Act came into force on 25th April, 1973; whereas the earlier application was filed on 14th May. 1971.;